Contemporaneous price declarations defeat allegation of non-intimation and mala fide intent in duty demand dispute.

Contemporaneous price declarations for two different MRPs supported the assessee's case that the department had been informed of the pricing structure, so the allegation of non-intimation was factually unsustainable. The mere change of stickers did not, on its own, establish mala fide intent where the record showed acknowledged declarations for both clearances. On that basis, the duty demand lacked legal foundation on merits, and the separate plea of limitation also supported the assessee. The duty demand and penalty were therefore held unsustainable, and the appellate order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty were sustainable where two price declarations had been filed for different MRPs and the department alleged non-intimation and mala fide intent.

Analysis: The appellant had filed one price declaration for clearance at MRP of Rs. 471/- all over India and another for clearance at MRP of Rs. 390/- for specified northern states, and the latter was acknowledged by the departmental inspector on 8.3.2001. In these circumstances, the allegation that no declaration or intimation had been made to the department was incorrect. The admitted change of stickers did not by itself establish mala fide intent when the record showed contemporaneous declarations reflecting the two MRPs. The demand was therefore examined as lacking legal foundation both on merits and on the plea of limitation.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were not sustainable; the appeal succeeded and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside.

---